Most likely, Apple will offer a bundled streaming platform for content providers, that will allow them to monetize their content through both iAds and the iTunes store, where the content can be purchased by season, purchased by episode, rented, or through subscription.
If the content providers offer it for free, it will be supplemented by iAds where it is possible that it will be sponsored by either an exclusive iAd buyer, or multiple iAd buyers.
It is basically bringing sponsored television programming to an interactive platform, where the ads and programming can be customized to the audience rather than generally.
You know how Apple now allows developers to charge for app bundles? Maybe they'll allow disparate developers to sign up to jointly offer a subscription bundle!
I do not see this as good news, if anything once the dust settles most of us will be paying more than what we currently are paying. Since most of the cable providers are also our broadband providers and in most cases also have a monopoly, they will just jack up the price of broadband to make up the difference. This tells me we can say goodbye to net neutrality. The cable/broadband providers will soon adopt the wireless model of tiered plan which will greatly slowdown all this streaming adoption, or at very least make it a very expensive venture for those of us who wishes to go that route. What we are currently witnessing is that every network wants to charge for access, if you add all those things up, our bill will just as expensive as our current cable bill or more. Our dream/hope of lowering our cable bills just go squashed.
not for those of us who don't want 99% of network content. if you want an all-you-can-eat buffet of slop, by all means, keep it.
i also welcome the shoot-out over net neutrality. we won't let them win.
It would be nice to be able to create or buy small packages of channels. Like 10 channels, as you wish, for $40 or so. That would be handy and work for a lot of people. So, being logical, it probably won't happen.
Except that outside of the largest cities, where the cable companies charge more, most people aren't paying much more than $40 for the basic cable portion of their bill today. So you'd simply be getting less for the same price. The other issue is that most people who get cable also get their internet access from the cable provider and have a package deal. If you drop cable completely, your internet access rate goes up and they'd probably do the same if someone took "too small" a cable package. In my case, I think it would go up by $20 per month. Most MSOs do have a deal where you get very few channels - but it's mostly the OTA channels plus a few others. For example, Time Warner has a deal in NYC (last time I checked) where you get only 19 channels, but it's only the OTA channels + HSN, QVC, C-Span and two local government channels. That obviously sucks.
I always thought that each channel should be assigned a point value based upon how much the MSO has to pay for the station. If a cable channel wanted an audience because their revenue model was based more on advertising than subscribers, it could be 0 points. A sports channel would be a high number of points. Then you'd choose the channels you wanted, total up the points and pay whatever. The more points you purchased, the lower the cost per point. While that sounds logical, in the end, I'm sure people would wind up paying exactly what they pay today for fewer channels because the MSOs won't accept lower revenue streams. And if the cable channels only got paid based on who actually subscribed to each channel, we'd probably lose half of them, although that would be no loss, IMO. Personally, I've de-programmed all but about 40 channels and I don't even watch most of those.
My MSO recently started charging a $3.98 Broadcast TV surcharge and a $1.97 Sports Programming Surcharge which really pisses me off. For one thing, it enables them to advertise a lower price than they actually charge, since the advertised prices don't include fees. But it also means they're charging me an extra $24 a year for sports, which I very rarely watch and I actually don't watch very much on the broadcast TV channels either. In my building, we have a master TV antenna which receives the OTA channels quite well anyway, so I don't really need them from cable, although it would be slightly less convenient having to switch inputs all the time as I channel surf.
So, we will pay Apple for the subscriptions and not the individual providers?
I don't pay a dime for the 40 channels I get now OTA. Why do I want to waste $100/mo (thats $1200/year) for 10-15 channels that duplicate most of what I get for free?
They have the advertising model for TV that pays the bill. Streaming that same info over the net for free should be a no brainer. I don't understand why this isn't the model.
There are lots of models. CBS has (recently?) started streaming it's shows for free on their site immediately after they air on the West coast. With embedded ads. My pet peeve with all these streaming w/ ads platforms is that the ads are so limited you are exposed to the same ads over and over and over. OTA TV ads are a pleasure by contrast (except for that new Android ad with the horrible "music"/noise).
Most likely, Apple will offer a bundled streaming platform for content providers, that will allow them to monetize their content through both iAds and the iTunes store, where the content can be purchased by season, purchased by episode, rented, or through subscription.
If the content providers offer it for free, it will be supplemented by iAds where it is possible that it will be sponsored by either an exclusive iAd buyer, or multiple iAd buyers.
It is basically bringing sponsored television programming to an interactive platform, where the ads and programming can be customized to the audience rather than generally.
That would coincide with a news article from today regarding iAds. Apparently with iOS8 Apple has added some additional user (viewer?) tracking capabilities.
"Say, for example, a visitor to a retailer’s iPhone app adds a pair of shoes to his cart but ultimately decide not to buy it. In this scenario, the retailer will now be able to retarget that user with an ad for that exact pair — even in another app on his iPad (also works cross-device). When tapped, the ad would direct him back to his abandoned checkout page and automatically add the shoes to his online shopping cart.
“One of the big limitations of not just iAd, but the entire iOS ecosystem, is that cookies don’t work,” said Eric Franchi, co-founder of cross-device ad network Undertone. IOS is the operating system on which Apple devices run. “If Apple can bring very advanced targeting combined with e-commerce, it will be incredibly powerful.”
E-commerce companies are a particular focus for the new feature as it enables them to retarget users across Apple devices based on items they have previously expressed interest in. E-commerce apps can also track the items shoppers add to their digital wishlists and send ads for those items when they go on sale, and target ads based upon a person’s shopping history."
I wish it was. I'd prefer to pick and choose channels and pay a lump sum monthly fee with my itunes account. I really hope that Apple can incorporate this kind of solution for television. It's a little shocking that they haven't yet.
What does what? What is disrupting the cable/satellite industry?
content producers finally recognizing IPTV* can be profitable & structuring their contracts with cable television companies to allow direct delivery to consumers.
* i know, not strict IPTV, but the promise (and ability) to have direct-to-consumer content providing has been around for sooooo long.
No live tv, shows a day after they air, and no NFL means this is just a half assed attempt to appease users. Until you give people the exact same product that exists on cable and satellite, it just won't be the same offering.
HBO's offering isn't exactly live, but it appears online immediately afterwards the episode airs (which is good enough) and maybe that will change with their new offering next year.
every day, all of philadelphia gets to see the big middle finger that is the comcast center. soon they will be providing my fair city the "double bird"
Kill the cable company ? Never happen. Without there broadband how are you going to watch Apple TV ? DSL In my area is useless. (4down) Cable 50down Min. There are a few other's around. DirectPC (Useless) Some wireless, (Slow speeds) and trying to get signal is rough at best. Fiber is still a long ways out to be at your curb to tie into for the average joe.
But "cutting the cord" is such a mantra and the hip thing to do, that they'll probably get some math-impaired people to go for it.
if you believe people like myself cut the cord 15 years ago because it was "hip", then you really don't understand other people very well. i cut the cord because paying even $50/month, or $600/year, seems a waste of money to me. that'd have been $9,000 to date. for tv. no, i'd prefer to purchase the few programs i feel are worth paying for. at $30-45 a season i come out ahead.
since many of these are on a single network, HBO (~4 shows a year), id ever pay for a reasonably priced subscription.
i assure, nobody cuts cable to be "hip". thats as stupid as saying people buy apple products to look cool at coffee shops.
So, we will pay Apple for the subscriptions and not the individual providers?
I don't pay a dime for the 40 channels I get now OTA. Why do I want to waste $100/mo (thats $1200/year) for 10-15 channels that duplicate most of what I get for free?
They have the advertising model for TV that pays the bill. Streaming that same info over the net for free should be a no brainer. I don't understand why this isn't the model.
To say that the content you get OTA is the same as what is on cable is ludicrous. You are either just lying or you don't watch any of the shows that come on cable. OTA isn't going to have ESPN, Comedy Central, AMC, A&E, NatGeo, Discovery, etc. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't enough content on OTA to keep people happy, but it isn't anywhere close to same content you get with a traditional cable/satellite package.
I pay for Netflix and after I finish watching the last season of The Walking Dead I'm thinking of canceling. Too few current options and life is too short to watch crappy movies.
netflix has more than crappy movies. tons of documentaries, which many people enjoy, as well as huge back catalogs of popular television series, from Breaking Bad to Star Trek NG.
Cable is not totally immune. Here in Minneapolis, we have 2 ISPs rolling out fiber internet (1000/1000) at the same price as Comcast in the area. It will take them years to cover the who area, but it will force Comcast to be more competitive or offer the same product.
I think there's much more available here than what's currently on Netflix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
It is somewhat worse than that too. The cable and satellite companies get the pricing they do because of the number of subscribers they bring to the table. Once people start cutting the cord, they will loose direct revenue as you mention, but they will also loose the strong bargaining position with the content providers. So their rates will likely increase which will make their packages even more expensive. Doh!
Not at these prices. It only works if you want to watch only one or two networks. Let's say all the networks do this and charge the same $6 a month. You subscribe to CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and let's say just four basic cable channels: take your pick, but one example might be AMC, FX, Comedy and SciFi. Now you're up to $48 a month. Add just one sports and one news channel and you're up to $60 a month and you still have to pay someone for access to the web. If your access to the web is via your cable company, if their cable revenue goes down, they'll simply raise their ISP prices. So in the end you'll be paying more than you're paying for those 200 channels today. And that's aside from the fact that each channel is going to be a separate URL or app.
Also, $6 a month is for the "free" broadcast channel. The so-called premium channels would likely be more.
As was pointed out by poster Dubston in a previous thread, Apple's ATV page changed and now says "starting at $99" instead of just "$99". Looks like this change happened when the page was updated with Apple's new website design.
Could that mean there will be more than one ?TV model, perhaps a regular and advanced?
Where did I say that the OTA content is the same as cable? It IS for the major networks, which I already get, but not the private ones. However, we get OTA ESPN/network broadcasts for some ball games, and frequently, the best shows on NatGeo, Discovery, etc. are picked up and broadcast on the public networks later. PBS has some of the best shows on TV (three channels in my area). I don't care for the "stupid" coms. What I might be missing isn't worth $5/mo. Having "lots" of content and having "good" content are entirely different things. As I read the news, people are abandoning cable for OTA in droves. The antenna people are having a field day talking about "free" TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundvision
To say that the content you get OTA is the same as what is on cable is ludicrous. You are either just lying or you don't watch any of the shows that come on cable. OTA isn't going to have ESPN, Comedy Central, AMC, A&E, NatGeo, Discovery, etc. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't enough content on OTA to keep people happy, but it isn't anywhere close to same content you get with a traditional cable/satellite package.
Comments
You know how Apple now allows developers to charge for app bundles? Maybe they'll allow disparate developers to sign up to jointly offer a subscription bundle!
I do not see this as good news, if anything once the dust settles most of us will be paying more than what we currently are paying. Since most of the cable providers are also our broadband providers and in most cases also have a monopoly, they will just jack up the price of broadband to make up the difference. This tells me we can say goodbye to net neutrality. The cable/broadband providers will soon adopt the wireless model of tiered plan which will greatly slowdown all this streaming adoption, or at very least make it a very expensive venture for those of us who wishes to go that route. What we are currently witnessing is that every network wants to charge for access, if you add all those things up, our bill will just as expensive as our current cable bill or more. Our dream/hope of lowering our cable bills just go squashed.
not for those of us who don't want 99% of network content. if you want an all-you-can-eat buffet of slop, by all means, keep it.
i also welcome the shoot-out over net neutrality. we won't let them win.
It would be nice to be able to create or buy small packages of channels. Like 10 channels, as you wish, for $40 or so. That would be handy and work for a lot of people. So, being logical, it probably won't happen.
Except that outside of the largest cities, where the cable companies charge more, most people aren't paying much more than $40 for the basic cable portion of their bill today. So you'd simply be getting less for the same price. The other issue is that most people who get cable also get their internet access from the cable provider and have a package deal. If you drop cable completely, your internet access rate goes up and they'd probably do the same if someone took "too small" a cable package. In my case, I think it would go up by $20 per month. Most MSOs do have a deal where you get very few channels - but it's mostly the OTA channels plus a few others. For example, Time Warner has a deal in NYC (last time I checked) where you get only 19 channels, but it's only the OTA channels + HSN, QVC, C-Span and two local government channels. That obviously sucks.
I always thought that each channel should be assigned a point value based upon how much the MSO has to pay for the station. If a cable channel wanted an audience because their revenue model was based more on advertising than subscribers, it could be 0 points. A sports channel would be a high number of points. Then you'd choose the channels you wanted, total up the points and pay whatever. The more points you purchased, the lower the cost per point. While that sounds logical, in the end, I'm sure people would wind up paying exactly what they pay today for fewer channels because the MSOs won't accept lower revenue streams. And if the cable channels only got paid based on who actually subscribed to each channel, we'd probably lose half of them, although that would be no loss, IMO. Personally, I've de-programmed all but about 40 channels and I don't even watch most of those.
My MSO recently started charging a $3.98 Broadcast TV surcharge and a $1.97 Sports Programming Surcharge which really pisses me off. For one thing, it enables them to advertise a lower price than they actually charge, since the advertised prices don't include fees. But it also means they're charging me an extra $24 a year for sports, which I very rarely watch and I actually don't watch very much on the broadcast TV channels either. In my building, we have a master TV antenna which receives the OTA channels quite well anyway, so I don't really need them from cable, although it would be slightly less convenient having to switch inputs all the time as I channel surf.
So, we will pay Apple for the subscriptions and not the individual providers?
I don't pay a dime for the 40 channels I get now OTA. Why do I want to waste $100/mo (thats $1200/year) for 10-15 channels that duplicate most of what I get for free?
They have the advertising model for TV that pays the bill. Streaming that same info over the net for free should be a no brainer. I don't understand why this isn't the model.
There are lots of models. CBS has (recently?) started streaming it's shows for free on their site immediately after they air on the West coast. With embedded ads. My pet peeve with all these streaming w/ ads platforms is that the ads are so limited you are exposed to the same ads over and over and over. OTA TV ads are a pleasure by contrast (except for that new Android ad with the horrible "music"/noise).
Hell yes.
"its been too long......"
It must be new TV hardware. has to be.
i think it means app store -- it's been too long since apps came to ATV.
That would coincide with a news article from today regarding iAds. Apparently with iOS8 Apple has added some additional user (viewer?) tracking capabilities.
"Say, for example, a visitor to a retailer’s iPhone app adds a pair of shoes to his cart but ultimately decide not to buy it. In this scenario, the retailer will now be able to retarget that user with an ad for that exact pair — even in another app on his iPad (also works cross-device). When tapped, the ad would direct him back to his abandoned checkout page and automatically add the shoes to his online shopping cart.
“One of the big limitations of not just iAd, but the entire iOS ecosystem, is that cookies don’t work,” said Eric Franchi, co-founder of cross-device ad network Undertone. IOS is the operating system on which Apple devices run. “If Apple can bring very advanced targeting combined with e-commerce, it will be incredibly powerful.”
E-commerce companies are a particular focus for the new feature as it enables them to retarget users across Apple devices based on items they have previously expressed interest in. E-commerce apps can also track the items shoppers add to their digital wishlists and send ads for those items when they go on sale, and target ads based upon a person’s shopping history."
I wish it was. I'd prefer to pick and choose channels and pay a lump sum monthly fee with my itunes account. I really hope that Apple can incorporate this kind of solution for television. It's a little shocking that they haven't yet.
What does what? What is disrupting the cable/satellite industry?
content producers finally recognizing IPTV* can be profitable & structuring their contracts with cable television companies to allow direct delivery to consumers.
* i know, not strict IPTV, but the promise (and ability) to have direct-to-consumer content providing has been around for sooooo long.
No live tv, shows a day after they air, and no NFL means this is just a half assed attempt to appease users. Until you give people the exact same product that exists on cable and satellite, it just won't be the same offering.
HBO's offering isn't exactly live, but it appears online immediately afterwards the episode airs (which is good enough) and maybe that will change with their new offering next year.
how much is comcast making?
enough to build a second skyscraper next to their current headquarters:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/New_Comcast_tower_cleared_for_takeoff.html
every day, all of philadelphia gets to see the big middle finger that is the comcast center. soon they will be providing my fair city the "double bird"
Kill the cable company ? Never happen. Without there broadband how are you going to watch Apple TV ? DSL In my area is useless. (4down) Cable 50down Min. There are a few other's around. DirectPC (Useless) Some wireless, (Slow speeds) and trying to get signal is rough at best. Fiber is still a long ways out to be at your curb to tie into for the average joe.
But "cutting the cord" is such a mantra and the hip thing to do, that they'll probably get some math-impaired people to go for it.
if you believe people like myself cut the cord 15 years ago because it was "hip", then you really don't understand other people very well. i cut the cord because paying even $50/month, or $600/year, seems a waste of money to me. that'd have been $9,000 to date. for tv. no, i'd prefer to purchase the few programs i feel are worth paying for. at $30-45 a season i come out ahead.
since many of these are on a single network, HBO (~4 shows a year), id ever pay for a reasonably priced subscription.
i assure, nobody cuts cable to be "hip". thats as stupid as saying people buy apple products to look cool at coffee shops.
So, we will pay Apple for the subscriptions and not the individual providers?
I don't pay a dime for the 40 channels I get now OTA. Why do I want to waste $100/mo (thats $1200/year) for 10-15 channels that duplicate most of what I get for free?
They have the advertising model for TV that pays the bill. Streaming that same info over the net for free should be a no brainer. I don't understand why this isn't the model.
To say that the content you get OTA is the same as what is on cable is ludicrous. You are either just lying or you don't watch any of the shows that come on cable. OTA isn't going to have ESPN, Comedy Central, AMC, A&E, NatGeo, Discovery, etc. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't enough content on OTA to keep people happy, but it isn't anywhere close to same content you get with a traditional cable/satellite package.
I pay for Netflix and after I finish watching the last season of The Walking Dead I'm thinking of canceling. Too few current options and life is too short to watch crappy movies.
netflix has more than crappy movies. tons of documentaries, which many people enjoy, as well as huge back catalogs of popular television series, from Breaking Bad to Star Trek NG.
Cable is not totally immune. Here in Minneapolis, we have 2 ISPs rolling out fiber internet (1000/1000) at the same price as Comcast in the area. It will take them years to cover the who area, but it will force Comcast to be more competitive or offer the same product.
I think there's much more available here than what's currently on Netflix.
It is somewhat worse than that too. The cable and satellite companies get the pricing they do because of the number of subscribers they bring to the table. Once people start cutting the cord, they will loose direct revenue as you mention, but they will also loose the strong bargaining position with the content providers. So their rates will likely increase which will make their packages even more expensive. Doh!
It's LOSE, not loose.
Not at these prices. It only works if you want to watch only one or two networks. Let's say all the networks do this and charge the same $6 a month. You subscribe to CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and let's say just four basic cable channels: take your pick, but one example might be AMC, FX, Comedy and SciFi. Now you're up to $48 a month. Add just one sports and one news channel and you're up to $60 a month and you still have to pay someone for access to the web. If your access to the web is via your cable company, if their cable revenue goes down, they'll simply raise their ISP prices. So in the end you'll be paying more than you're paying for those 200 channels today. And that's aside from the fact that each channel is going to be a separate URL or app.
Also, $6 a month is for the "free" broadcast channel. The so-called premium channels would likely be more.
Not sure why anyone would pay anything for this unless they pull everything from Netflix which I already pay for.
Netflix does not offer current-season programming or live streaming.
As was pointed out by poster Dubston in a previous thread, Apple's ATV page changed and now says "starting at $99" instead of just "$99". Looks like this change happened when the page was updated with Apple's new website design.
Could that mean there will be more than one ?TV model, perhaps a regular and advanced?
Where did I say that the OTA content is the same as cable? It IS for the major networks, which I already get, but not the private ones. However, we get OTA ESPN/network broadcasts for some ball games, and frequently, the best shows on NatGeo, Discovery, etc. are picked up and broadcast on the public networks later. PBS has some of the best shows on TV (three channels in my area). I don't care for the "stupid" coms. What I might be missing isn't worth $5/mo. Having "lots" of content and having "good" content are entirely different things. As I read the news, people are abandoning cable for OTA in droves. The antenna people are having a field day talking about "free" TV.
Quote:
To say that the content you get OTA is the same as what is on cable is ludicrous. You are either just lying or you don't watch any of the shows that come on cable. OTA isn't going to have ESPN, Comedy Central, AMC, A&E, NatGeo, Discovery, etc. Now, I'm not saying that there isn't enough content on OTA to keep people happy, but it isn't anywhere close to same content you get with a traditional cable/satellite package.